←back to thread

858 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | | HN request time: 1.057s | source
Show context
croes ◴[] No.42934439[source]
Natural language isn’t made to be precise that’s why we use a subset in programming languages.

So you either need lots of extra text to remove the ambiguity of natural language if you use AI or you need a special precise subset to communicate with AI and that’s just programming with extra steps.

replies(10): >>42934517 #>>42934537 #>>42934619 #>>42934632 #>>42934651 #>>42934686 #>>42934747 #>>42934909 #>>42935464 #>>42936139 #
Klaster_1 ◴[] No.42934619[source]
A lot of extra text usually means prior requirements, meeting transcripts, screen share recordings, chat history, Jira tickets and so on - the same information developers use to produce a result that satisfies the stakeholders and does the job. This seems like a straightforward direction solvable with more compute and more efficient memory. I think this will be the way it pans outs.

Real projects don't require an infinitely detailed specification either, you usually stop where it no longer meaningfully moves you towards the goal.

The whole premise of AI developer automation, IMO, is that if a human can develop a thing, then AI should be able too, given the same input.

replies(3): >>42934735 #>>42934760 #>>42936203 #
throwaway290 ◴[] No.42934760[source]
idk if you think all those jira tickets and meetings are precise enough (IMO sometimes the opposite)

By the way, remind me why you need design meetings in that ideal world?:)

> Real projects don't require an infinitely detailed specification either, you usually stop where it no longer meaningfully moves you towards the goal.

The point was that specification is not detailed enough in practice. Precise enough specification IS code. And the point is literally that natural language is just not made to be precise enough. So you are back where you started

So you waste time explaining in detail and rehashing requirements in this imprecise language until you see what code you want to see. Which was faster to just... idk.. type.

replies(2): >>42934814 #>>42934892 #
falcor84 ◴[] No.42934814[source]
Even if you have superhuman AI designers, you still need buy-in.
replies(1): >>42934859 #
1. uoaei ◴[] No.42934859[source]
There's a nice thought, that anyone with that kind of power would share it.